America Cannot Withdraw From Its Debts or Disease -By Fransiscus Nanga Roka

A government announces it is leaving an institution. Declaring victory does not make its financial obligations disappear. A break with the World Health Organization could reveal a troubling notion of sovereignty: that we can choose to leave whenever we want and ignore the circumstances of our departure.

One the one hand, it was an announcement that the withdrawal from WHO has been completed on January 22, 2026 due to decree of Trump administration. Washington listed shortcomings during COVID-19, insufficient reforms and political interference and said it had ceased funding, pulled staff and moved to one-on-one engagement. Those are the reasons given by the administration not disputed conclusions regarding WHO.

The starting point of the legal conundrum is the terms that America itself set for its own continued membership. The 1948 congressional resolution, now experienced codified at 22 U.S.C. §290c, maintained withdrawal on a one year observe while requiring full cost of financial commitments for WHO’s prevailing fiscal yr. This is not an inconvenient bill made in Geneva, it is a condition established by law.

Yet precision matters. In a legal report, WHO from January 2026 found that two key questions of interpretation emerged: which fiscal year is the relevant one for determining what amount is owed; and does payment have to be made in order for a member state to effectively withdraw. It tagged debts due in 2024 with the corresponding unreadable print and also logged cancellations for those repayments, while unrecording them for 2025 and 2026. So Washingtons announcement should not be mistaken for an uncontested legal resolution.

The dispute also survived January. At the time of its next assessment by April 2026, the WHO reported that the United States had amassed arrears exceeding two years’ contributions, putting it in a group of members whose eligibility to vote could be suspended. Forced exile had not wiped the accounting or institutional treatment of that debt from the organization.

Unpaid dues from 2024–2025,a lot of it going back to the Biden administration totaled roughly $278 million in January. Accountability requires acknowledging that chronology. It also requires a distinction of compulsory assessments from voluntary funding whereby terminating future contributions and refusing to pay dues that have become due are different actions.

The more serious problem is the precedent. However, as the money is maintained on the basis such powerful governments can always conjure up unhappiness in their countries that vote away commitments, and live purely by circumstance of others being useful continuing effectively thereby conditionality or cooperation. Smaller states are then expected to obey rules that larger states regard as negotiable.

Performance, transparency and political independence is a many splendored thing that merits WHO continues scrutiny. Yet withholding dues accrued does not change procurement, true verification or actual emergency response. It shifts not just the fiscal burden but also some of its political costs onto an institution whose work is far broader than the actions of those officials under attack.

Secondly, bIlaterals can provide assistance to health programs. Feature of the tragedy: they cannot immediately create a global framework for surveillance, scientific collaboration and coordination. It is a mistake to think an outbreak must start in an American partner country to pose a risk.

Four strategic steps are necessary.

The first step is for Washington and the WHO to come up with a reconciliation — separately tabulating assessed arrears, disputed liabilities in 2026 and voluntary contributions. Congress ought to do so by paying amounts already established and then withhold payment for any contested sum until the executive branch has a reasoned legal justification.

Second, the World Health Assembly must be clear about a transparent process that sets out the rules for withdrawal and its financial implications. Ambiguity invites selective compliance.

Third, both sides need to maintain legal technical cooperation on outbreak alerts, laboratory information and emergency coordination while addressing the institutional dispute.

Fourth, expand predictable, diversified financing with independent audits and measurable performance standards from WHO members. Substituting reliance on Washington with reliance on a different capital or donor would replicate the danger.

America can ask for a better WHO It ought to facilitate prove reforms and pay what is owed. Thus, abandoning those obligations weakens the moral validity of its demands.

The withdrawal notice will not be acknowledged by viruses. Debtors are to not confuse it with a receipt.

Fransiscus Nanga Roka

Faculty of Law University 17 August 1945 Surabaya and Managing Partner Law Firm Victorious Indonesia